Обсуждение: potential stuck lock in SaveSlotToPath()
When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits don't release the slot's io_in_progress_lock. Fix attached. This could result in a walsender being stuck on the lock forever. A possible way to get into this situation is if the offending code paths are triggered in a low disk space situation. (This is how it was found; maybe there are other ways.) Pavan Deolasee and Craig Ringer worked on this issue. I'm forwarding it on their behalf. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
Hi, On 2020-03-18 16:46:23 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits don't > release the slot's io_in_progress_lock. Fix attached. I'm a bit confused as to why we we ever call it with elevel = LOG (i.e. why we have the elevel parameter at all). That seems to have been there from the start, so it's either me or Robert that's to blame. But I can't immediately see a reason for it? Greetings, Andres Freund
On 2020-Mar-18, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020-03-18 16:46:23 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits don't > > release the slot's io_in_progress_lock. Fix attached. > > I'm a bit confused as to why we we ever call it with elevel = LOG > (i.e. why we have the elevel parameter at all). That seems to have been > there from the start, so it's either me or Robert that's to blame. But I > can't immediately see a reason for it? I guess you didn't want failure to save a slot be a reason to abort a checkpoint. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 4:46 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > [patch] + * releaseing even in that case. Typo.
Hi, On 2020-03-18 16:54:19 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Mar-18, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2020-03-18 16:46:23 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > When SaveSlotToPath() is called with elevel=LOG, the early exits don't > > > release the slot's io_in_progress_lock. Fix attached. > > > > I'm a bit confused as to why we we ever call it with elevel = LOG > > (i.e. why we have the elevel parameter at all). That seems to have been > > there from the start, so it's either me or Robert that's to blame. But I > > can't immediately see a reason for it? > > I guess you didn't want failure to save a slot be a reason to abort a > checkpoint. I don't see a valid reason for that though - if anything it's dangerous, because we're not persistently saving the slot. It should fail the checkpoint imo. Robert, do you have an idea? Greetings, Andres Freund
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:25 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > I don't see a valid reason for that though - if anything it's dangerous, > because we're not persistently saving the slot. It should fail the > checkpoint imo. Robert, do you have an idea? Well, the comment atop SaveSlotToPath says: * This needn't actually be part of a checkpoint, but it's a convenient * location. And I agree with that. Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look right for the early-exit cases either. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2020-03-19 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: > Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look > right for the early-exit cases either. There appear to be appropriate pgstat_report_wait_end() calls. What are you seeing? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2020-03-19 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: > > Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look > > right for the early-exit cases either. > > There appear to be appropriate pgstat_report_wait_end() calls. What are > you seeing? Oh, you're right. I think I got confused because the rename() and close() don't have that, but those don't have a wait event set either. Sorry for the noise. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2020-03-20 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 2020-03-19 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look >>> right for the early-exit cases either. >> >> There appear to be appropriate pgstat_report_wait_end() calls. What are >> you seeing? > > Oh, you're right. I think I got confused because the rename() and > close() don't have that, but those don't have a wait event set either. > Sorry for the noise. Any concerns about applying and backpatching the patch I posted? The talk about reorganizing this code doesn't seem very concrete at the moment and would probably not be backpatch material anyway. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2020-Mar-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-03-20 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM Peter Eisentraut > > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 2020-03-19 16:38, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > Incidentally, the wait-event handling in SaveSlotToPath() doesn't look > > > > right for the early-exit cases either. > > > > > > There appear to be appropriate pgstat_report_wait_end() calls. What are > > > you seeing? > > > > Oh, you're right. I think I got confused because the rename() and > > close() don't have that, but those don't have a wait event set either. > > Sorry for the noise. > > Any concerns about applying and backpatching the patch I posted? It looks a straight bug fix to me, I agree it should be back-patched. > The talk about reorganizing this code doesn't seem very concrete at the > moment and would probably not be backpatch material anyway. Agreed on both counts. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:13 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Any concerns about applying and backpatching the patch I posted? Not from me. > The talk about reorganizing this code doesn't seem very concrete at the > moment and would probably not be backpatch material anyway. +1. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On 2020-03-25 17:56, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 6:13 AM Peter Eisentraut > <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Any concerns about applying and backpatching the patch I posted? > > Not from me. > >> The talk about reorganizing this code doesn't seem very concrete at the >> moment and would probably not be backpatch material anyway. > > +1. committed and backpatched -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> committed and backpatched
The patch committed does that in three places:
/* rename to permanent file, fsync file and directory */
if (rename(tmppath, path) != 0)
{
+ LWLockRelease(&slot->io_in_progress_lock);
ereport(elevel,
(errcode_for_file_access(),
errmsg("could not rename file \"%s\" to \"%s\": %m",
But why do you assume that LWLockRelease() never changes errno? It
seems to me that you should save errno before calling LWLockRelease(),
and then restore it back before using %m in the log message, no? See
for example the case where trace_lwlocks is set.
--
Michael
Вложения
On 2020-03-27 08:48, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:16:05PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> committed and backpatched
>
> The patch committed does that in three places:
> /* rename to permanent file, fsync file and directory */
> if (rename(tmppath, path) != 0)
> {
> + LWLockRelease(&slot->io_in_progress_lock);
> ereport(elevel,
> (errcode_for_file_access(),
> errmsg("could not rename file \"%s\" to \"%s\": %m",
>
> But why do you assume that LWLockRelease() never changes errno? It
> seems to me that you should save errno before calling LWLockRelease(),
> and then restore it back before using %m in the log message, no? See
> for example the case where trace_lwlocks is set.
Good catch. How about the attached patch?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:26:25PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Good catch. How about the attached patch? WFM. Another trick would be to call LWLockRelease() after generating the log, but I find your patch more consistent with the surroundings. -- Michael
Вложения
On 2020-04-02 08:21, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:26:25PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> Good catch. How about the attached patch? > > WFM. Another trick would be to call LWLockRelease() after generating > the log, but I find your patch more consistent with the surroundings. done -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services